Skip to content

Tag Archives: Haridimos Thravalos

An Explainer on Hamdan II, Al-Bahlul, and the Jurisdiction of the Guantánamo Military Commissions

By
Friday, April 26, 2013 at 10:30 AM

As Wells noted on Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit granted the government’s petition for rehearing en banc in Al-Bahlul v. United States. This is a very important development, as the full appeals court will now determine whether military commissions may try defendants for pre-2006 instances of “standalone” conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism. Al-Bahlul has . . .
Read more »

Readings: Haridimos Thravalos on Conspiracy and Military Commisions: The Extended Dance Version

By
Monday, May 14, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Back in March, I posted a guest post by Haridimos Thravalos on the history of conspiracy prosecutions in military commissions. Thravalos’s post prompted responses from Steve and from Kevin Jon Heller; it showed up immediately in government briefs in Al Nashiri, and it was the subject of argument at the Al Nashiri motions hearing in April. . . .
Read more »

Four Big Questions Heading into the Hamdan Argument

By
Tuesday, May 1, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Wells and Larkin have a more comprehensive preview in the works for Thursday’s oral argument before the D.C. Circuit in Hamdan v. United States, and I’d encourage folks to wait for their contribution to get a full sense of the issues raised by the briefs. Just to be clear from the outset, though, I don’t . . .
Read more »

Thravalos Responds on Nashiri, Conspiracy, and Ex Post Facto

By
Friday, April 20, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Further to my post from last Thursday on the Ex Post Facto Clause issue in the Nashiri prosecution, Haridimos Thravalos has sent in a response, which I’ve posted in its entirety below the fold. I’ll have a couple of reactions to Thravalos’s response later today.

Nashiri, Conspiracy, and the Ex Post Facto Problem

By
Thursday, April 12, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Notwithstanding the Lawfare love-in, I’m a bit troubled by one of the threads that appeared to emerge from the argument in Nashiri over whether conspiracy is a recognized violation of the laws of war.  Based on Ben’s summary, it sounds like both General Martins and Judge Pohl are quite taken with the historical research undertaken by Haridimos . . .
Read more »

Kevin Jon Heller on Thravalos on Hamdan

By
Monday, March 26, 2012 at 7:53 AM

Over at Opinio Juris, Kevin Jon Heller offers the following objection to Haridimos Thravalos’s guest post last night on Hamdan, conspiracy, and history: There is, however, a basic problem with Thravalos’ argument.  He claims that “[t]he Hamdan plurality found that conspiracy was not a violation of the law of war under domestic precedents for three reasons” (emphasis mine).  But the Hamdan plurality . . .
Read more »

Haridimos Thravalos on Hamdan, Conspiracy, and History

By
Sunday, March 25, 2012 at 11:46 PM

I received this evening a most extraordinary guest post. It isn’t every day that someone sends me a memo outlining how a four-justice plurality of the Supreme Court got a key historical point wrong in a major case–much less does so convincingly. But that is what the following article by one Haridimos V. Thravalos claims about . . .
Read more »

Historical Examples of Remand to Military Detention After Commission Prosecution

By
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 10:23 AM

Yesterday I asked whether there are any historical examples in which (i) a military commission prosecution occurred during an armed conflict rather than afterwards, (ii) the defendant was acquitted, and (iii) the defendant was nonetheless remanded back to military custody to be detained under color of the law of war.  I’m happy to hear from . . .
Read more »